Ken Norton vs Corrie Sanders primes

I'm having a hard time thinking of a worse matchup for Norton. Sanders even had a sweet right uppercut to sweep up under the crossed arms. I guess Norton might beat the worst version of Sanders.

 

You don't sweep under the crossguard, not nearly what you would call consistently, or against a rather mediocre user. You could uppercut somebody like Bert Cooper I reckon, or land on top of the head against bob and wave heavy users, but then again his horizontal defense was deconstructed by Foreman, a true Archie Moore protege, in two brutal rounds.

 

Could be an early KO for Sanders.
He certainly had that power.

 

Corrie gets him out of there fast.

 

Watched a bit more of Norton to refresh my memory. You do have a point: the uppercut wouldn't be as effective against him as against other crossguard users. He keeps it tight against his body with lots of good lateral head movement. The guys that cross their arms in front of their faces, leaving a gap underneath ... those guys are the guys that will eat uppercut bingo.

 

It's the crossguard I've seen in Fight Night Champions and Creed III, and I think it's a butchered cinematic monster of the real deal. A position you would perhaps visit in certain situations (when at the end of long, straight punches, and you want to completely shut them down before regaining momentum.)

 

I don't agree with others as sanders was a BUM compared to Norton. Norton in a UD. Foreman did destroy Norton in 2 rounds but Sanders is no george Foreman.

 

I agree with this,

 

You're right, Sanders is a better boxer, with better footwork, with much faster and more accurate punches thrown from a southpaw stance. He threw straight hard shots down the pipe and went equally well to the body and head. Foreman's slow motion clubbing punches may have been powerful but they were by comparison predictible and slower to target. You're right, Sanders is no George Foreman.

 

A pretty dangerous matchup for Norton in terms of style. I think Sanders is underrated as an overall fighter. Still, I'm not counting Norton out. He still has a much better chin than WK. In my opinion Norton can absorb more than most people think. If you take the Cobb fight as an example. I think Norton has the ability to outbox Sanders and overwhelm him with his workrate. But Sanders has a significant punchers chance.

 

I’m leaning towards Ken Norton to win this one somehow. Not sure if it’s via decision or stoppage. While I realize that Corrie Sanders had punching power that he could have hurt Norton with, he didn’t have the greatest chin himself and had questionable stamina whereas Norton was a proven 15 round fighter. The styles matchup is difficult to make any solid predictions with. I don’t know how many southpaws Ken ever faced and nor do I think Sanders ever fought someone with an Eddie Futch-inspired stance.

 

Nice rage bait, if only the great Corrie Sanders didn't have a suspect chin, lose to nate tubbs and fail to KO chinny Rahman. Foreman wears him down to a nub and lays him out. As for Norton ? Corrie probably wins that early

 

lol at limiting Norton’s stoppage loses to the Foreman fight. I think you have him mixed up with Frazier.

 

Sanders' chin was 'ok', he took shots from punchers without crumbling. His main hassle was getting too excited at scoring the KO, losing concentration and getting caught coming in. The main problem with his legacy is that he was a rather inactive heavyweight first, and second, that his most important fights took place when he was older or, in the case of the Rahman fight, injured. Foreman has some specific strengths that might prove problematic for Sanders, in his chin and firepower. But Norton is another matter entirely.